criterionforum.org

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:41 pm**

Michael Kerpan wrote:> I whole-heartedly agree on both counts. What a powerful, but not manipulative, film.

And yet, I (alone in all the world, it would seem) find it almost as manipulative as Kinoshita's 24 Eyes (which gets my vote as the most manipulative, reasonably good film I've ever seen -- not counting Spielberg's better efforts).

You're not alone. Not only is it manipulative, it's so schematic that it's insulting and wholly unaffecting. Yes, old people die, boohoo, and young people are selfish and shortsighted. If anybody's choices and actions in the film had been logical and believeable (including the director and screenwriter) it might've been more potent. I like several of McCarey's films (particularly The Awful Truth), but the praise heaped on this one is flabbergasting. I much prefer Capra, whose work is more ambitious and ambiguous and artful.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:59 pm**

I don't like to trash films so many other discerning people love -- especially when I find myself rather averse (in general) to the director who made the film in question. But while I am perfectly willing to believe that the film has far more value than I find in it, I truly don't understand how anyone can view it as unmanipulative. (I don't _disbelieve_ people who say this, rather I truly can not begin to see how the film can be viewed this way).

I see this as the polar opposite of Tokyo Story -- and suspect Ozu went out of his way (so to speak) to avoid the sort of manipulativeness found in this film (after falling into many of the same traps in his earlier Toda Family).

(I prefer Capra to McCarey too -- by a wide margin),

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:23 pm**

Capra preferable to McCarey?

I recently rewatched It Happened One Night and found it tedious to the point where I switched off 20 mins before the end. Give me The Awful Truth any day. Even Mr Smith Goes to Washington, which I consider Capra's best and least dated work, has one major flaw in the erratic characterisation of Claude Rains. Related to this, the script paints itself into a corner before film's end and creates an awful deus ex machina to get itself out of the insurmountable dilemma. If one of these two directors should have gone unacknowledged in past decades, it ought to have been Capra instead of McCarey.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:28 pm**

Mr Finch wrote:Capra preferable to McCarey?

I recently rewatched It Happened One Night and found it tedious to the point where I switched off 20 mins before the end.

No accounting for taste. ;~}

I love It Happened One Night and only moderately enjoyed Awful Truth. I suspect McCarey's ingrained (very deep) social and political conservatism permeates his films --and makes me allergic (and thus less able to judge his work purely aesthetically).

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:53 pm**

I prefer Awful Truth to It Happened as well, but chalk that up to liking Grant and Dunne (and Bellamy, heh) much more than Gable and Colbert. And Dunne's wardrobe in AT is outrageous. I realize those aren't valid criticisms or endorsements, but...

I'd say Mr. Smith is one of Capra's worst -- wholly lacking in ambiguity and not allowing for any other reading than what's on screen. A real snooze. Also promotes the idea that governement actually, like, works for the good, haha, which is a dangerous lie. My love and admiration of Capra rests on three pictures: Lost Horizon, You Can't Take It with You, and It's a Wonderful Life.

Posted: **Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:04 pm**

Forgot about Wonderful Life #-o the one Capra film I've unreservedly loved.

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:50 am**

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I watched this last night and was quite impressed. I was expecting the movie to make most of its mileage from a sentimental scenario guaranteed to be a tearjerker. I wasn't expecting the acting to blindside me as it did, but it really surprised me. Bark and Lucy won me over as their actions seemed consistent with experiences in my own life. The actions of the children felt equally true as I was able to see everything from their angle. I was impressed that McCarey took the trouble to cover all of those angles rather than paint all the kids as heartless brats. Their behavior made sense. It was still selfish behavior, but McCarey took the time to ground it so as to make his point more powerful. I can't say I needed to be convinced on the need for caring for one's parents, but this film didn't feel as didactic or sentimental as I'd thought it might be.

Pretty much my feelings about this film as well. I was sort of expecting a tragic, melodramatic tearjerker, and ended up with a very charming and heartwarming story about the film's couple, Barkley and Lucy. While it is tragic and sorrowful in spots, there is was quite a bit of warmth and humor throughout, particularly when the couple meets for what is likely the last time. I agree that the children ended up being more fleshed out and forgiving than what it seemed through the beginning and midsections of the picture.

It may not be Tokyo Story (which I think is an unfair comparison), but I did find it to be very good Hollywood cinema of the 1930s.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:27 am**

It seems Criterion released this back in 1942??? Haha, check out the opening shot and the closing shot of the movie theater in Times Square.
I know it's just coincidence, but still...

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:36 am**

Well, that was a real movie theater- http://cinematreasures.org/theater/528/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Funny to see a movie as far from cartoonish as Make Way pop up in Looney Tunes, though.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:08 pm**

very cool find.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:33 pm**

A silly question that I cannot help but ask: What exactly do you all think happened to Rhoda?

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:56 pm**

Blu-ray upgrade coming May 19

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:29 am**

blu-ray.com

Not sure I like the heavy electronic look of the grain. Seems to me it has been contrast-boosted and it's making the grain coarser à la Harakiri.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:29 pm**

Definitely heavier grain look, however it was done.

Criterion versus MOC.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:04 pm**

I think it's actually down to the compression on the MoC. Note the loss of detail on Moore's lapel on the MoC (Criterion to compare). There are compression artifacts all over this one. On that cap you can even see some of the remnants of the black specs that are all over the Criterion (compare). So I'm not sure any contrast boosting has gone on, indeed you can see that MoC's Ruggles of Red Gap looks far closer to the Criterion MWFT, with the same ugly electronic black speckled grain. The masters for these films are simply dated and no longer hold up.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:40 pm**

Having just gone through it I think the Criterion looks nice (details are better, you can make out the fine scratches on the print, and the textures, particularly on what I assume is leather, look stunning) but I do think it's been sharpened a bit. The grain can look noisy and it can be very distracting at times. Not always but you can't help but notice it every once in a while. I will say every still i take looks pretty bad but it's better in motion. I don't have the MOC version but in comparison to the DVD I'd still say the Blu-ray is far better.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:04 pm**

No argument from me that this is better than the MoC (and obviously the DVD), but I don't think either of them hold up. This looks awful for instance; we should absolutely be able to read the letters on the board there. It reminds me of those infamous noise ridden Italian transfers. Frankly, I find Svet's scoring, especially in comparison to Sullivan's Travels, pretty risible.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:14 pm**

EddieLarkin wrote:It reminds me of those infamous noise ridden Italian transfers.

I thought of the differences between the US and UK Robbe-Grillet, which is why I thought initially the Criterion might not be that superior to the MoC. But you're right, the compression on the MoC isn't optimal and that doesn't help at all.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:16 pm**

EddieLarkin wrote:No argument from me that this is better than the MoC (and obviously the DVD), but I don't think either of them hold up. This looks awful for instance; we should absolutely be able to read the letters on the board there. It reminds me of those infamous noise ridden Italian transfers. Frankly, I find Svet's scoring, especially in comparison to Sullivan's Travels, pretty risible.

I've only seen this on TCM, and you could readily see the bridge hand she's referring to.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:34 pm**

EddieLarkin wrote:No argument from me that this is better than the MoC (and obviously the DVD), but I don't think either of them hold up. This looks awful for instance; we should absolutely be able to read the letters on the board there. It reminds me of those infamous noise ridden Italian transfers. Frankly, I find Svet's scoring, especially in comparison to Sullivan's Travels, pretty risible.

I get what you're saying there and I won't argue that there aren't issues because there are: I found the grain really distracting at times in motion. It could be better. But with that scene you point out, in motion you can read it. It's not super crisp mind you, and I blame that more on the source, but it's legible. I'm not wholly defending the transfer and I was a little underwhelmed when I first popped it in, but I'm just saying it's not as bad as many will make it out to be (high praise, I know).

Still, I also agree that Sullivan's is better, both the Arrow and Criterion.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:40 pm**

That makes sense I suppose: as the grain moves around between frames some details will only become apparent in motion, whilst all still frames will obscure too much for the same detail to be legible.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:10 pm**

I wonder if this is a case of picking your poison? I've become a little wary of films of this vintage that have this amount of contrast - it's not bad, but it's not quite what I'm used to when I see them projected from 35mm prints. If the grain is really that distracting, I'm wondering if some grain management was applied by MoC just to reduce it? Certainly would explain why their BD is less sharp and in some spots (like that lapel) less detailed.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:20 pm**

Isn't it likely that MOC used the master "as is" (like with Two-Lane Blacktop) and Criterion decided to perform some additional work on it?

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:39 pm**

Drucker wrote:Isn't it likely that MOC used the master "as is" (like with Two-Lane Blacktop) and Criterion decided to perform some additional work on it?

For Two Lane, MoC used a Universal master "as is" indeed, but Criterion didn't, they used their own HD master which was used for their DVD at the time.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:51 pm**

Drucker wrote:Isn't it likely that MOC used the master "as is" (like with Two-Lane Blacktop) and Criterion decided to perform some additional work on it?

Absolutely no idea. MoC isn't likely to do any grain management, but I don't think a rare exception is out of the question, especially when it's to a mild degree. And as mentioned, it's possible these are two different masters. Who knows? Anyone who would care to chime in?

criterionforum.org

505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow

Re: 505 Make Way for Tomorrow